Farmers' & Merchants' State Bank v. Huss
| Decision Date | 12 February 1924 |
| Citation | 182 Wis. 658,197 N.W. 177 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Parties | FARMERS' & MERCHANTS' STATE BANK v. HUSS. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County; W. R. Foley, Judge.
Action by the Farmers' & Merchants' State Bank against J. W. Huss. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
This is an action to recover on a promissory note executed by the defendant to S. H. Garnes & Sons and by the latter transferred to the plaintiff bank. The note was dated May 20, 1920, and became due two years thereafter. The court found that the note had been altered by the bank, and denied a recovery on the note. The court, however, found that, while the note had been altered by the bank, it had not been altered with a fraudulent intent, and permitted the bank to recover on the original consideration, which was the purchase price of a tractor purchased by the defendant from S. H. Garnes & Sons. From that judgment the defendant appealed.W. T. Doar, of New Richmond, for appellant.
Kennedy & Yates, of Amery, for respondent.
OWEN, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The evidence tends to show that the payees of the note offered the note to the bank for purchase. The acting cashier, Oliver Stenberg, said that the bank could not handle the note, because it ran for two years, and it could not accept any note running for more than one year. The payees gave assurance that they would pay the note within a year, whereupon Stenberg wrote the word “one” over the word “two.” He testified that he did this not with any intention of altering the note so as to enable the bank to enforce the same against the maker before two years from the date thereof, but to indicate that the payees would pay the note within one year. The trial court gave full weight to the testimony of Stenberg and exonerated him from any fraudulent purpose in his mutilation of the note. It appears, however, that about the time the first year's interest was due, the defendant, Huss, knowing that the bank had the note, called at the bank for the purpose of paying the first year's interest. He was waited upon by one Walter Fraypoint, who produced the note and informed the defendant that they would have to have not only the interest but the principal. The defendant protested and said the note was not due for another year. The defendant looked at the note and stated that it had been changed to one year instead of two, Fraypoint then called Stenberg, who frankly admitted that he, Stenberg, had made the alteration. The defendant then paid the interest and went about his business. Within a month the bank brought action against him to collect on the note. The defendant interposed an answer alleging the mutilation of the note, after which the plaintiff bank voluntarily dismissed the action.
It is conceded that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lampe v. Franklin American Trust Co.
... ... 452; Kelly v. Thuey, 143 Mo ... 434; State ex rel. v. Chick, 146 Mo. 657; Cable ... v. Jones, 179 ... S.W. 174; Bacon v. Theiss, 208 S.W. 254; Bank of ... Moberly v. Meals, 316 Mo. 1158, 295 S.W. 73; ... Penneman, 108 Mass. 366, 11 Am. Rep. 363; ... Farmers' Bank v. Huss, 182 Wis. 658, 197 N.W ... 177; Walton ... Manufacturers' & Merchants' Bank v. Twelfth ... Street Bank, 223 Mo.App. 194, 16 ... ...
-
Dennett v. Pantzer (In re Dennett's Estate)
...change as to notice of option in a note, all prior to the change in the law as to holders in due course; and Farmers' & M. State Bank v. Huss, 182 Wis. 658, 660, 197 N. W. 177, where action was brought upon such altered instrument, knowing of and relying upon the alteration; to which may be......
-
Fed. Corp. v. Radtke
...argues that when the note and contract were altered they became null and void, under the rules laid down in Farmers' & Merchants' State Bank v. Huss, 182 Wis. 658, 197 N.W. 177, and Morley-Murphy Co. v. Van Vreede, 223 Wis. 1, 269 N.W. 664, and that consequently he is entitled to recover th......
-
Morley-Murphy Co. v. Van Vreede
...Merrill, 1 Pin. 340;Matteson v. Ellsworth, 33 Wis. 488, 14 Am.Rep. 766;Kilkelly v. Martin, 34 Wis. 525. See, also, Farmers' & M. State Bank v. Huss, 182 Wis. 658, 197 N.W. 177;Hecht v. Shenners, 126 Wis. 27, 105 N.W. 309. In 2 C.J. 1179, § 95, it is said: “The general rule is that when the ......